Will you be Satisfied with 30 Frames per Second on the PS4 & Xbox 720?

By Furious Francis, editor in chief

A rumored leak of the PlayStation 4 dev kits lead many to believe Sony would be targeting 1080p 60 FPS in 3D gameplay for the PS4. However, in that same leak the supposed specs didn’t quite match up to that quality. While 1080p 60 FPS could still be possibility, more information has come from id Software Developer John Carmack saying that most games will still be at 30FPS next generation, “Unfortunately, I can pretty much guarantee that a lot of next-gen games will still target 30 fps.” If John Carmack says it, I believe him. Plus, he’s one of the few developers that actually made 60 FPS happen this generation with RAGE and Doom 3 BFG Edition. We want to know what the gamers want? 30 FPS with better graphics, or 60 FPS with lower quality graphics? Please put your comments below.
(Microsoft, Next-Gen, Nintendo, PS3, Sony, Tag Invalid, Wii U, Xbox 360)

30fps sometimes contributes to the cinematic feel of certain games, like I just cant imagine Uncharted 4 running in 60fps like I cant imagine a major blockbuster movie being shot with a news camera. So Im fine with those types of games staying 60fps

Framerates in video games can't be equated to film/camera filming techniques. A game running at 60FPS doesn't differ visually from a game running at 30FPS. In motion one just looks smoother than the other, there is no stylistic or artistic difference between the two.

It all depends on the final specs. and what the devs. want to do with their game. If a dev. wants Ultra settings on a game then it may very well be 1080p @ 30fps depending on the GPU. If Sony / MS demand mid settings then it may very 1080p @ 60fps for all games.

It also depends on the type of AA games use. 2xMSAA - 4xMSAA will drain fps, while FXAA will keep fps high.

I nor, you, nor Carmack truly know what to expect, because while there are rumored dev kits out there, nothing is final until launch day.

There is definitely both stylistic and artistic differences in choice of frame rate even in games. If anyone has seen the Hobbit in 48fps, it feels completely different. Almost like it's not a movie at all. So if you're aiming for a traditional movie feel, then 30 fps could be a specific choice.

But developers rarely choose to limit frame rate, if they can keep the game stable on higher frame rates.

Well, when you think about it.. consoles have to be pushed. New and better hardware will only mean the same thing that happened this generation.. most games will probably be 30fps because the console has to be future-proof. It'd be pretty hard to keep a game running at 60fps when technology keeps advancing for PC gamers. 30fps games that look phenomenal on console is fine with me. As long as the graphics are good, i'm not too worried about framerate.. i'll worry about framerate with my PC games.

30fps is good if the input is smooth and there is minimal delay. Due to multithreading, doubling the FPS halves the input delay - but for most console games, there isn't too much delay at 30fps. The real issues come when the machine can't keep the frame rate up, that jitter can totally ruin the experience. Not only that, but the rendering frame rate is usually independent from other 'frame rates' within a game engine. For example the logic in an RPG may be computed at 10fps, while the input sampled at 30fps, and the rendering done at 60fps - performance issues are most likely to cause a cut in rendering frame rate, because the GPU shaders are typically very heavily loaded (not to mention RAM). In fast-paced games, dips in performance ruin a lot of things - such as spray control in FPSs or steering/breaking in racing games, the simulation must be preserved. It isn't just what you see on screen that changes, your input has a different effect on the game due to performance. Heavily mathematical things like physics and AI are less likely to break due to irregular frame rates, though they can and do (usually due to slightly shoddy programming, not that it's easy).

It's not just about what it looks like on the display. In which case, 60fps is ALWAYS better than 30fps for games. It's not a film camera, no cinematographic effect is gained by using a lower frame rate. For games that people prefer to play above 60, like Counter Strike (rock solid 101fps is the best), it's due to how the game receives and deals with user input - nothing to do with the visuals.

That genre died (or at least was partially monopolized by "Guitar Hero") when the ps3/360 consoles and new (slow refresh rate) TV's came in. No fault of their own, but it was sad that the days of DDR came and went.

I hope the Sony Visor thing takes off, becomes around $100 bucks a pop and I also hope that technology gets a greater refresh rate than what TV's have now.

Also, if you think horror genre video games are scary now imagine playing them with the Sony Visor thing ...

Both ps3 and Next Xbox will be doing 60FPS. Seriously think about the logic. Ms and Sony are not gonna release new systems till what 2019-2020? So will 30FPS be ok by 2015-2016?

If anything either can learn ts to make console a little bit future proof, I know it's hard to do with a $400 price tag but maybe they can take a little loss on a system in return for bigger sales and make more down the road.

But maybe I am wrong and these systems will be able to o ly do 30fps

Some games need 60FPS and some are good with 30. Insomniac have gone to 30FPS for all their games in exchange for better performance overall. So a little give or take in some way

Okay, look. We old-school, faithful and hardcore gamers know how great something can be running at 60fps. Those wonderful people had a much more compelling argument against Ninja Theory taking over DmC than "Dante looks different." We know... but your average Joe doesn't. What companies will want is something that looks great in an advertisement, cutscene-like stuff to sell that game over another one. Unfortunately, 60fps isn't really a selling point for that crowd.

I want stuff running at 60 as much as possible, but let's face it - when it comes to the big guys analyzing what the average gamer wants, and delivering on that, they aren't going to care.

I have to agree on Lior on this one. If you've been gaming at 60fps for a long long time (like myself) going back to 30 can and does induce a headache. It's almost like playing a slide show. It's not bad if you're used to it, but it takes some adapting. Imagine watching a movie at 12fps instead of 24. Same difference.

Agreed, I started playing Borderlands 2 on PC at 60+fps then moved over to Xbox to play with some friends. It literally gave me a headache. If console games aren't going to aim for 60fps next gen ill be very disappointed.

After switching to PC gaming and playing games at 60+ FPS, it's literally headache inducing going back to the 30 (and during firefights, 25)fps or when things get really heavy the 15fps on console games.

Gears of War, Halo and Uncharted are some of the biggest culprits of barely maintaining 30fps and it's a serious strain on the eyes.

If next-gen consoles don't do 60fps I'll just stick with PC gaming because it's not worth getting a headache just to play an exclusive title.

Well I can see I'm the minority then. I love gaming on my PC and everything too, but as it is more in the medium build range, I'm usually stuck around 30-40Fps when gaming on it so I guess I just haven't gotten used to it yet:/

(For the record, I agreed with all of you guys, I don't know who gave you all the one disagree. Just wanted to point that out lol.)

This is something that we do not have power over. It's completely the developer's choice. But since we're talking about frame rates, we're obviously stepping into the graphics category more than the cpu. So it all depends on how much developers are willing to invest on their game engines and whether or not it takes great advantage of all the consoles' attributes. And if it does take advantage of it all, is it using each part to it's fullest and is it optimized? Optimization is the most important word a developer will ever hear because there's not a single developer,programmer out there that wants his/her game to run poorly on a certain console. Think of it as a v8 engine from the 1950's and a v8 from now.

While I agree that optimization plays a large factor, decent hardware is still needed. Lets use you're engine metaphore. Optimization is more so about tuning. If you were to tune a 1950's engine today it would likely perform better. But if you were to use better hardware you'd see much bigger gains.

The Glorious PC Gaming Master Race1600p 60+ fps Ultra Graphic settings 4xSSAA 8xAF.....I can careless about 3D but with 3D on 45 to 60 does the trick!!!

So i would expect Next Gen consoles to achieve this but we have to remember that consoles have a WATTAGE cap unlike PC's that have 1000 watt PSU's and unlimited power!

So I would say scrap 3D, use FXAA and get as close to 60 fps @ 1080p with Ultra Graphics as you can. 60 fps is FRIGGIN Butter and makes a huge difference over 30 fps.

I have 3D and after a few minutes it's really not all that great plus I don't like playing with glasses on....I'm more impressed By Nvidia Physx than 3D. No word on that nice feature for Next Gen consoles especially seeing how AMD is doing the GPU's but I'm sure Devs have nice tricks up their sleeves!

Even with power efficient GPU's the wattage cap is still an issue but Devs will still find ways to get the most outta the Next Gen consoles plus they can pick and choose 30 or 60 fps depending on the game and maybe drop down to 720p to achieve 60fps if needed.

Spot on. The wattage cap is something people should look at to get an idea of the upcoming specs. Based on previous consoles, I'm thinking its going to be around 200watt with a 7xxx series mobility based GPU (if we're lucky), which is already around 100w on its own. If we are really lucky it will be based on a high end 8xxxM series but I'm having my doubts if we're looking at a $399 launch price.

I guess so, the sad reality is most console games this gen can barely handle 30 fps in basic HD, 60 fps in 1080p as a standard for consoles next gen seems like a huge hurdle to jump, so I honestly don't get why people would say that. So yes 30fps is dine so long as it's a standard thats maintained.

HDMI 1.4a which is on 99% of TV's has a limited bandwidth. A HDMI port doesn't have bandwidth to do 1080p3D @ 60fps. It can do 720p 3D @ 60 fps or 1080p3D @ 24 fps max. You need Dual Mini Display Port out+in to get 1080p3D @ 60fps which TV's don't have.

So unless everyone who buys a console next gen also wants to buy a monitor with Dual Mini Display Port in or a TV with Dual Mini Display Port which doesn't yet exist. It aint gonna happen !

it may require the adoption of a new standard but a single standard displayport cable has over twice the bandwith of hdmi. dont know why you keep mentioning the dual mini.

anyway if someone goes out of their way to support 4k or 3d at whatever price the display costs, using a new cable shouldnt be a problem and im sure the displays will support it when it is reasonable as most moniters with that resolution already do.

in a year 4k could be well within reason, in two we could see 4k at 60fps.

Sony can bring us hardware that could handle 60fps but at the end of the day its all down to what the developers can make work and with Wii U, Xbox 720 and PS4 most 3rd party multiplat devs will make games to suit all 3 consols so if PS4 can handle it that wont happen if Xbox 720 and Wii U (depending on its support) can't handle it.

Anyway John C s a butthurt dev thats mad Rage ran at 60fps AND FLOPPED. He boasted so much about rage running ay 60 fps until it flopped and now hes questioning the whole 60fps crap.

It's going to happen (marketing and business dictates this), there will probably be more 60fps games than this gen though. Most of the big titles will be 30fps and especially towards the end of the generation.

I respect people that think they arent satisfied unless the games is 60 fps and I dont blame you i love that smoothness and extra tight response but sadly in this gen where we are having every game at 60 fps isnt possible unless optimization to achieve is an option we should b thankful they dont downscale the depths of the games we play having a longer gaming gen is both a gift and a curse with the gift is that we most gamers this late should or could be a tri console owner with a good portion being a dual console owner with the high odds of having both the ps3 and 360 we dont need a new console but the bad is that it lowers the chances of 60 fps games but at least we will see when next gen is hitting should E3 be a good indication where the industry is heading but for now lets enjoy the games 30 or 60 fos just be happuy that they either continue your favorite franchise in some respectable form or a brand trend setting IP! Just appreciate our hobby is growing!

Not just any "man". Carmack is the most well known programmer in the industry. I'd definitely take his word for it. Sure RAGE had its problems on consoles, but it doesn't take away what he has done in his career.

@Thc Cell the man that hyped up rage or not you can not discredit his influence and contribution to gaming im not saying rage was a disappointment because people did enjoy it but it was not to what the majority expected from john carmack due to his influence and contribution to gaming oh well! Im still going to have an open mind since his mind is not to copy cod he wants his type of gameplay im awaiting his next game its john carmack plain and simple

@torchic

My comment to thc cell goes to you too but I want to add sure his dev team hasnt done any awesome games but in a technical perspective they are trying more than what most want between multiplat dev teams but since john carmack is at the helm im sure he will straighten things out just know this I personally am supporting carmack and his efforts in making the gaming industry go forward

We'll probably see 30fps again for the same reason that Toy Story 1, 2 and 3 took around the same amount of time to render even with the huge advancements of power in the computers they were produced on, developers will give priority to lighting, physics, draw distance, ect over framerate.

One day people will realize that higher framerates aren't something that a hardware manufacturer can force upon developers.

Every game that runs at 60FPS on todays consoles cut something down (the things Qrphe listed.) to make that happen. Naughty Dog absolutely could have shot for 60FPS average in Uncharted, the games just wouldn't have looked half as good as it does with a 30FPS average. They chose to prioritize the lighting, physics and other technical wizardry over 60FPS.

Most casual gamers just think it is "smoother" but doesn't really mind if it was 30fps. They associate it more with latency, not graphic fidelity.

I personally can play either way, my preference is 60fps. But playing something like Uncharted, I don't seem to mind one bit that it is 30fps. Would I like it to be 60fps? Sure, but its not so I live with it.

But fighting games, racing games, sports games, and twitch shooters like COD need to be 60fps regardless of the console.

Yes, i know, im a PC gamer, i can tell the difference between 30 and 40 FPS.

But honestly, Just from the people ive seen playing games, Its like "oh cool a new gears of war, lets get some brew skies and cut things with chainsaw guns" Not, "Darn this games not 60 fps, i better not touch it" A vast majority of gamers play games for fun and dont know about things like FPS or AA, then theres the vocal minority on the internet that squabbles over a 5% difference in screen tearing or whatever.

Oh please, we barely get games at 720p to run at a solid 60fps. So with next gen I at least expect that. Framerate is key, I'm tired of witnessing epic moments it games only to find out a second later it turns into a slide show.

if games look as amazing as gears of war 3 or halo 4 you will never notice drops at all coz you'll be immersed in eye popping graphics. even 20 frames per second would be fine for me if next gen games look halo 4 level.

High end Pc hardware is already more than 24 times more powerful (linked post is from JUNE THIS YEAR), So id expect it to hit the 50 times more powerful mark in about 2 years as the number of transistors that can be fit on a die doubles every 2 years (moores law), or according to David House of intel performance doubles about every 18 months.

So just to rub it in... Its not me who would be the one on a another planet smoking pot.

Edit: Also to throw it in the Ps3 Cell cpu is 40 times more powerful than the Ps2 emotion engine with a 6 year gap or so beetween them. 360 is 7 years old now, hope you see where Im going with this.

First it was 1080p now its 60fps? people just cant seem to settle for one thing most newer games On PC dont do 60 fps with everything maxed out on a high end cards,I know because I had a 670 that would dip to mid 30's on some games with MSAA on . I would rather have 1080p and a good game than worry about 60fps, Now that COD kept bragging about 60 fps , that all everyone talk about 60fps! seriously movies are not even 30fps .So no I don't really mind 60fps +1080+the graphics you people want from consoles would takes too much proccesing power and consoles wont have the power of a 670 for under $400 And this gen proved better graphics doesnt mean more sales

You seem to forget that most PC games aren't really optimized well. So that game that struggles to get 60fps on PC could be coded much better for a a system with locked specs.

For PC games, they just give you whatever and let you fudge with the settings until you get the performance you want and if you can't get what you want, you have to buy better hardware until it looks and performs the way you want.

On console, you just buy the game and you're done. It looks how it looks and plays how it plays. That's all there is to it.

im sure the haters will say yeah they are satisfied as long as its not a nintendo system....you see reggie saying oh ps4 and xbox next is coming out soon we'll see what they do...cause guess what 1080p is 1080p so there will not be much graphic difference if they bring resolution higher then that when hardly 60 percent of the public have full 1080p tv , and they consoles come out for 500 dollars in this economy , then its a done deal...its over for both of them...thats what crybaby fanboys dont get....and both ps4 and next xbox will market heavy or alot more to the casual market...nintendo did the opposite cause wiiu is more heavily market and put together for the hardcore....yet haters hate cause nintendo wanted the best games on board at launch cause they are on other systems...so what asc3, cod, darksiders, zombiu are all great games that play better on wiiu despite lows scores from haters who seem to be vengeful against nintendo.....but unlike sega...nintendo fans are real fans and will support what they know are facts...that wiiu is a great system and the little hiccups will be gone in a month or so....and that the next systems from sony and microft will not outdo wiiu by much at all if even..

@WiiULee Well, I cant really comment on the Wii U because I do not own one nor plan on getting it in the future. (I said the same thing about the Gamecube until the Resident Evil REmake came out.) This stems more from feeling I wasted my money on the Wii. That's for another discussion tho. I disagreed with you regarding the PS4 aspect of your post.

There are no official specs regarding the system but it has been confirmed for a few years now that the PS4 will be a developers console. Sony has gone through great lengths to get the suggestions, input, criticisms, & expectations of many developers professional opinions for present & future hardware goal settings. I'm comfortable & confident that games like MAG, DCUO, DUST 514, Resistance, PS Home & other high memory/performance needing games will run like high level pc games with the proper dev input. I do not game on pc, but my hero counterparts over there on DCUO inform the community how much better, performance wise, things are for them compared to PS3 players.

I, too, care about performance of many games. I think its pretty safe to assume that developers like Naughty Dog, Sony Santa Monica, Quantic Dream, & others will get the games on a visual scale expected of a next gen system. But I shutter to think of Sony's MMO's, Rockstar's open world blockbusters, or new ips like Watchdogs looking & performing as smooth as butter. So, although I may not be able to speak on how the PS4 may perform compared to the WiiU because of my admitted ignorant knowledge of the system, I am confident that even 1st gen titles for the PS4 from 1st, 2nd AND 3rd party devs will far exceed what we have for the PS3. The Wii U compared to the PS3 is debatable as evident from the many articles I've seen in the media lately. I take many of those stories with a grain of salt anyways.

oh no only 30 fps, that's it i'm not going to buy any next gen console lol. I for one dont give a s**t still day 1 purchase for me, and one other thing M4G seems to be littered lately with these what the next gen consoles can and cant do. people seem to be getting to wound up, why cant you just wait for official stats, jeez I dont think well get our hands on one of the new consoles untill at least 2014.

No you'll be playing on the same consoles you play on now next year. people are seriously deluded if they think the next xbox or ps will be out next year lol both company's have still yet to send out there final dev kits which aint gonna happen till next year maybe we might see the next gen consoles revealed at e3 and even if we do America and europe def wont see them till 2014 the far east might and it's a BIG might see a release in november especially the playstation or orbis, what ever it's called.

Ill be fine as long as they provide a substantial improvement over the existing ones we have now. Same as I always have. Better looking and controlling games is always expected. But not every game or genre always needs 60fps. I'm more worried about the overall quality of the games rather than just the graphics. Japan fell apart this gen with square enix and capcom not performing well at all. With the exception of MGS4, nothing really big came from Japan this gen. The ps1 and ps2 eras were ruled by Japan's superior gameplay and storytelling. Meanwhile the western made games mostly focus on guns and multiplayer and mostly ignoring the single player story driven games we grew up with in gens past.

Yes games like uncharted are beautiful to look at, but honestly, is the gameplay really that more advanced from a ps2 game? Outside of beautiful cut scenes and voice acting, all you do is run around shooting an endless army of bad guys. Next gen, lets update more than just the graphics. The gameplay has to evolve too.

@shonen_82 I agree with you for the most part, but I think that you may be being a little unfair with your comment & question "Yes games like [U]ncharted are beautiful to look at, but honestly, is the gameplay really more advanced from a ps2 game?" My answer to that question is yes.

I think of some of the most memorable experiences I had on the PS2 & compare them to the ones I've had, thus far, with the PS3. I think that the shortest & easiest comparison for me to do would be the God of War series. Sure, I could look at it from a glass half empty stance and say that Kratos ran around and caused mayhem & bloodshed in GOW 3 like he did in GOW 1 & 2, but I would GREATLY be selling the game short. Speaking on GAMEPLAY ONLY, (story is debateable for many in GOW 3), the way Kratos traversed the landscape, the dynamic landscape itself, the way we decimated each god & titan (along with the gameplay that led up to each god & titan) was above and beyond any of the previous iterations in the franchise. I'm staying spoiler free just in case u missed it somehow, but remember the Poseidon battle? Atlus? Hades? The Sun God dude? The fury he showed against Zues? These were all gameplay moments, not cut scene movies we watched!

I, too, want gameplay to continue to evolve, but to ask was this gens gameplay more advanced than last gens is unfair to SOME developers. There are many games that suffer from stagnation like you mentioned, but I think to lump them all together is a bit harsh & I think that you can agree with me on that point. *(For the record, I couldn't compare your Uncharted example becaus there was no last gen Uncharted to compare it too. I think that in comparing the same franchise with the same main dev team is the most fair compare & contrast route to take.)

As I said on another article about this, the framerate is mostly a design decision: if you can make something really good at 60 FPS, it means you'll be able to do somthing even more beautiful at 30 FPS and like this gen, some developers may want to sacrifice smoothness over this extra graphical quality.

The thing is, controllers aren't as responsive as a mouse so 60fps is often a waste on console unless it's a timing critical game (fighting). I mean, hell, Need for Speed Most Wanted runs at 30fps on console, but the input response of the controller is really tight... even at 30fps.

Well it depends doesn't it? The Bluetooth technology within a lot of controllers are not responsive since they are trying to process what the players doing, but also giving instructions for the games to follow. Mouses I do agree are more responsive, but that's when it's plugged into the energy supply, which either happens to be a USB 2.0, or a 3.0.

Well, some gamers like pretty graphics so they can run the game on 30fps,I prefer 60fps. But honestly I think we will see the same amount of 60fps games like always. Manny gamers will be disappointed,like this gen. Just don't believe the hype, like 120fps gaming,kz2 cgi trailer,and the power of cell.

lol..haha...whats hardcore voice chat.....chatting with guns going off in the background...come on man...wiiu has been out 1 month....things can only get better...stop being a hater...open up your mind..

These fanboys really think ms and sonys next consoles are going to have the greatest graphics oh man they are going to be real disappointed they really think for 400$ to 500$ dollars there going to get a console that does more then what most 1000$ and up pc are doing lol they so busy fighting about graphics and specs that they don't see nintendo setting them up for the kill SMH

I'm not a fanboy, but the PS4 will possibly have amongst the greatest graphics TO ME. Any improvement to Heavy Rain, Uncharted, God of War, Flower, Journey, Killzone, Fight Night, The Last of Us, & many others will be the best that I will have seen. Will there be better on the latest greatest pc? Maybe, but I wont see em. See, what u fail to realize is that as long as a person is satisfied with the expectations they have, who cares what the others can do. That goes for PC, Wii U, Xbox, AND Playstation. If you personally think that (extreme example) Lego Batman is the hottest graphics out, more power to u. I know my 10 second Mustang aint the fastest street car in Cali, but it'll do me just fine. It'll be the same attitude with WHATEVER system I choose to purchase next go 'round as well.

I'd very much like 1080p at 60fps. When next-gen consoles come out, it'll be 2013/14. No excuse for anything less to be honest, unless as someone said earlier, it's for "artistic purposes" to make a game more movie like. That said, I watched the Hobbit and thought 48fps was great.

Developers can do so much more with 30fps than 60fps. They have double the time to draw each frame, therefore they can use more effects, more polygons, better lighting and so forth.

Motion blur helps a lot to smooth out 30fps video. Look at smooth Uncharted 2, 3 looks and it's only running at 30fps. Most games try for 30fps, but usually hover around 25 and a lot of games don't use motion blur.

30fps is fine on consoles where you're using a controller, but it's a much bigger deal on PC with a mouse and keyboard. 30fps with a mouse seems too laggy.

Please don't. No offence, but if you think it's easy to go at 60 FPS on titles like Crysis 2 than you have another thing coming at you. I'm even surprised the PS3, or Xbox 360 can even pull off the 30 FPS considering there is so much processing going on all at once.

I bought a gaming PC after starting and spending 11 years of my life on consoles (bought it 5 years ago now). There are far more games, they're cheaper, and you get to have cutting edge tech whenever you choose to upgrade rather than waiting for Sony/Microsoft to release the next console.

At the moment, reverting back to my PS3 is near impossible as I find the graphics unbearably bad compared to my pc. If you buy a lot of games, the money saved on software will make up for the high cost of hardware (which can also be cheap if you go for AMD rather than Nvidia/Intel).